Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Prognostic accuracy of different disseminated intravascular coagulation criteria in critically ill adult patients: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Jumpei Yoshimura,
  2. Kazuma Yamakawa,
  3. Akira Kodate,
  4. Mari Kodate,
  5. Satoshi Fujimi
  1. Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Osaka General Medical Center, Osaka, Japan
  1. Correspondence to Dr Kazuma Yamakawa; k.yamakawa0911{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction Disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) is a common and serious condition that can lead to poor outcomes in critically ill patients. To make a correct diagnosis and improve the outcome of patients with DIC, several organisations have put forward DIC scoring systems. However, which criteria is the best to use for diagnosing DIC remains a continuing controversy even though many studies have been conducted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of each DIC scoring system.

Methods and analysis We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of DIC criteria for the prediction of mortality in critically ill adult patients. The primary objective is to assess the predictive values of the DIC criteria of Japanese Association for Acute Medicine, International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare, Korean Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis and Chinese Diagnostic Scoring System for 28-day mortality. We will search electronic bibliographic databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, perform full article reviews and extract study data. We will report study characteristics and assess methodological quality using the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-II tool. If pooling is appropriate, we will compute parameter estimates using bivariate random-effects and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic models to produce summary receiver operating curves, summary operating points (pooled sensitivity and specificity) and 95% confidence regions around the summary operating points. Clinical and methodological subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore heterogeneity.

Ethics and dissemination This systematic review will help physicians diagnose DIC accurately and improve their clinical practice in critically ill settings. Approval from an ethics committee is not required. The findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42017079350.

  • disseminated Intravascular coagulation
  • critically Ill patients
  • sepsis
  • diagnosis
  • mortality

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Contributors KY was a guarantor and contributed to the conception of the study. The manuscript protocol was drafted by JY and KY and was revised by SF. The search strategy was developed by all of the authors and will be performed by JY and MK, who will also independently screen the potential studies. JY and AK will independently extract data from the included studies, assess the risk of bias and complete the data synthesis. KY will arbitrate in cases of disagreement and ensure the absence of errors. All authors approved the publication of this protocol.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.